Mary,
Finally I am beginning to understand this lawsuit that Varian has filed. Thank you very much for the most recent filings that you have posted on your web site.
In my layman's opinion, you (and possibly Mr. Delfino as well) have done grave and irreparable damage to your defense of this lawsuit, and in far too many ways to enumerate here.
Let's start off with your persistent references to the plaintiff's lawyers as Fascists. I have looked at the law firm of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe and find them to be a competent and well-respected law firm. The legal actions they have taken on behalf on their clients are neither extreme nor unethical. They are duty-bound to represent their clients to the best of their abilities. My opinion is that the defendants in this case are upset, maybe because they have been caught red-handed, posting alleged derogatory messages on an Internet chat thread, and possibly in violation of an alleged court order prohibiting such postings. The plaintiff's attorneys have presented a chain of evidence, which when taken as a whole, appears to preclude any possible defense claim that might deny or refute the evidence. I commend Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe for their diligent and persistent efforts on behalf of their clients.
Regarding the depositions of the current and former Varian employees... You are asking us to believe your version of the story rather than the story presented by the plaintiffs through their collective depositions. Why would former employees lie to the court? Why would former employees risk their freedom and their reputations to lie to the court? In my opinion, your web site's thinly veiled implications that these people are lying is simply unacceptable. This is Silicon Investor, not Yahoo!... The people that post here are intelligent and most do their own research. We don't blithely accept whatever someone else posts as fact. We research, we dig deep, and eventually we arrive at the truth. I can assure you that most jurists are every bit as perceptive as we on SI are. Quite frankly, the story you are weaving just doesn't ring true, not one iota in my opinion. Maybe over on Yahoo! you will have supporters, but not likely here on SI, and not when one reads all of the supporting materials you have made available on your web site. There is a legal term known as approaching the court with "dirty hands". I'd suggest you read up on the concept, because the story you've been presenting here is simply unbelievable in my opinion.
In past posts, you have made numerous inferences that the cameras that Varian had installed were placed there in an (implied: perverted) effort to videotape employees that used the bathrooms. I find this to be a strange and totally unacceptable twist on the truth, which is that the cameras were installed in an effort to positively identify the individual or individuals that had been engaging in a pattern of harassment against other Varian employees, and possibly in one instance, an attempt at sabotage. I seriously doubt that the court will give much credence to the sabotage incident, because there simply isn't any evidence to link either defendant to the incident, nor is there conclusive proof that the allegation is even an act of sabotage, rather than some other perfectly innocent explanation such as an accidental chemical spill by an unknown third party or something along those lines.
In law, there is another term known as "preponderance of evidence". Varian has exactly that, a preponderance of evidence against the defendants.. As far as I have seen to date, the defense has none, other than to attempt to make legal mountains out of molehills when the plaintiff's lawyers have failed to dot every "i" or cross every "T" on motions filed with court. Remember that the Varian lawsuit is a civil lawsuit. The court will apply legal standards that are very much acceptable in civil suits, and not the much stricter standards required by criminal actions.
Now let's look at your persistent allegations that Varian's lawsuit is little more than a SLAPP lawsuit. I very much take offense at the efforts of any defense anywhere that might present themselves as victims of a SLAPP suit, when the preponderance of evidence might indicate otherwise. SLAPP stands for "Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation". If I have read your pleadings and posts correctly, the defense is presenting itself to be the victim of a SLAPP lawsuit, in which Varian seeks to prevent the defendants from posting on the Internet. The defense would have us further believe that the postings are an exercise of free speech, and an expression of opinions, and nothing more. In my layman's opinion, the disputed postings go far beyond an expression of free speech. I see them as a deliberate attempt to ridicule, and I view them as libelous, again in my opinion. Further, I see absolutely no evidence to support your counter-claim of SLAPP.
Earlier in this post, I had mentioned that we on SI are not stupid. We can read, and we can judge for ourselves. My considered opinion is that the defense is in really deep legal doo-doo. You may be able to use legal tactics to force delays (as can the plaintiff's who have apparently already done so), but the bottom line is that the judge that eventually hears the case is not likely to be some dummy. I don't buy your story, and I seriously doubt that any court will believe it either. If you persist in seeing this through to the bitter end in court, then I'd very much suggest that you request a trial by jury, where it may be possible to get a half-dozen or so citizens that will swallow everything; hook, line and sinker. By the way, that strategy worked well for OJ in his criminal trial, but not so well in his civil lawsuit.
Best wishes...
KJC |
